Menachos 64 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:14 - Introduction
00:51 - 64A
19:33 - 64B
26:44 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A shiur analyzes a Gemara about how Shabbos changes the way the Omer and other mitzvos are performed, testing whether רבי ישמעאל aligns with other Tannaim and why similar rulings may still differ. It then shifts to cases of חילול שבת where outcomes improve the mitzvah or save life, presenting a dispute between רבה and רבא about whether liability follows intent or the result, and stating that halacha follows the approach of זיל בתר מעשיו. It continues with practical cases about bringing food for a dangerously ill person on Shabbos and choosing the option that minimizes harvesting, and concludes with the Mishnah’s preference to bring the Omer from the closest grain, followed by a historical account from the Hasmonean civil conflict that led to the Omer being brought from גגות צריפים and the Two Loaves from בקעת עין סוכר.
- A shiur opens לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת מרדכי and states that רבי ישמעאל rules that bringing the Omer on Shabbos is different from a weekday, with Shabbos requiring reaping three סאה and a weekday requiring five סאה, because Shabbos requires being ממעט במלאכה. It states that three סאה yields very good flour but not as optimal as five סאה, and it requires more sifting. It states that the Gemara tries to equate רבי ישמעאל with other opinions and tests whether the similarity is real or only apparent.
- A shiur cites רבא that רבי ישמעאל and רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים “אמרו דבר אחד,” and quotes the Mishnah that רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים says that on Shabbos the Omer is reaped by one person with one sickle and one box, while on weekdays it is done with three people, three boxes, and three sickles. It states that חכמים rule there is no difference between Shabbos and weekday, and it is always three boxes and three sickles. It states a proposed comparison that when it is possible to do with less effort “דלא טרחינן,” and then rejects the proof by distinguishing that reaping with three people can serve פרסומי מלתא against the ביתוסים reading of “וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת,” while the three-versus-five measure may not create that publicity. It also gives the opposite distinction that one-versus-three people does not change what is offered לגבוה, but three-versus-five does affect quality, especially according to רש״י about the first flour, and therefore one might still choose five.
- A shiur cites רב אשי that רבי ישמעאל and רבי יוסי “אמרו דבר אחד,” bringing the Mishnah that witnesses desecrate Shabbos to testify about the new moon whether it was “נראה בעליל” or not, while רבי יוסי says that if it was “נראה בעליל” they do not desecrate Shabbos. It states the attempted analogy that if others can do it, “כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן,” and it rejects this by distinguishing that preventing witnesses from going can be “נמצאת אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבוא,” while the Omer measure does not create that future stumbling. It adds another distinction that קידוש החודש lacks צורך גבוה in the same way, whereas increasing the Omer’s quality can be צורך גבוה and justify greater Shabbos override.
- A new sugya states a case of one who, בשוגג, slaughtered two חטאות של ציבור when only one was needed. It reports that רבה ואיתימא רבי אמי says he is חייב on the second and פטור on the first, even if at the end it turns out the second atoned because the first blood spilled, and even if the first was found to be כחושה. It then presents רבא’s opposing formulation that if one had a שמנה and a כחושה and slaughtered the שמנה first and then the כחושה he is חייב, but if he slaughtered the כחושה first and then the שמנה he is פטור, and it adds that they even tell him לכתחילה to bring the שמנה and slaughter it. It resolves the contradiction by saying “סמי כחושה מקמייתא,” or by attributing the first statement to רבי אמי rather than רבא.
- A shiur asks Ravina to Rav Ashi about a case where the first animal later turns out internally deficient, making the second slaughter necessary, and frames the issue as whether one follows intent “בתר מחשבתו” or the outcome “בתר מעשיו.” It links this to a dispute between רבה and רבא about one who heard a child drowned and spread a net on Shabbos intending to catch fish: if he caught fish he is חייב, and if he brought up a child and fish then רבה says פטור while רבא says חייב. It states the conclusion presented as halacha that one rules like רבה, “זיל בתר מעשיו,” and it cites רש״י that even if he did not hear about the child, saving a life through the act yields פטור. It adds that רב זילברשטיין applies “זיל בתר מעשיו” to a case of breaking into a car and ultimately saving a child’s life, concluding he does not pay for the car.
- A shiur states in the name of רבא that if a sick person is assessed to need one dried fig, and ten people each bring a fig, all are פטורים, whether they arrive together or one after another, even if the first already healed him, and it adds that the Shulchan Aruch gives them great reward. It then presents רבא’s question where a sick person needs two figs and there are two figs on two stems versus three figs on one stem, and it rules “פשיטא” that one brings the three because it minimizes harvesting. It distinguishes this from רבי ישמעאל’s Omer case by stating that there reducing the amount also reduces harvesting, while here reducing the food amount would increase harvesting “קמפשי בקצירה.”
- A shiur quotes the Mishnah that the Omer should be brought “מן הקרוב,” and if the closest did not ripen it is brought “מכל מקום,” but within ארץ ישראל. It quotes that there was an incident where the Omer came from גגות צריפים and the Two Loaves from בקעת עין סוכר. It gives two reasons for preferring the closest: one is “משום כרמל,” with רש״י connecting כרמל to “רך ומל” and explaining that grain from farther may harden on the way, and the other is “משום דאין מעבירין על המצות.”
- A shiur brings a baraisa describing when the Hasmonean kings fought each other, with הורקנוס outside and אריסטובלוס inside Jerusalem, and daily they lowered money and raised up animals for the תמידים because the service sustained them. It states that an elder skilled in Greek wisdom signaled that as long as they engage in the עבודה they will not be delivered, and the next day they sent up a חזיר, which clawed the wall halfway up and caused ארץ ישראל to tremble ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע hundred פרסה, leading to the declarations “ארור שיגדל חזיר” and “ארור שילמד בנו חכמת יוונית.” It states that in that year the Omer was brought from גגות צריפים and the Two Loaves from בקעת עין סוכר because people did not know where to find the required grain after the outside forces burned the barley. It states that a חרש signaled locations by placing one hand on a roof and one on a hut, and רש״י says מרדכי interpreted it as גגי צריפין, while תוספות objects because of the chronology and says it was someone else, yet the narrative continues with מרדכי identifying the place. It states that for שתי הלחם a similar sign was given with a hand by the doorframe opening and one by *sikhra*, and מרדכי interpreted it as עין סוכר, and they searched and found the place.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions